This matches my experience. Strong men wish to have the fruits of their successes, while weak men have no successes and want to have handouts given to them. Also, socialism trends inversely with financial success; the poorer you are, the more you want a handout, and a rationalization to tell you that you actually don't suck.

A small outlier is union labor, who is socialist due to them being a bitch to The Man for their employment, even though they may be physically strong. Contrarywise, the owner of a very small business may well be conservative, as, although he is small, he is no one's bitch.

I think one of the big reasons for the rise of socialists is we have not had a major war in years. Wars tend to kill off the lower ranks of society disproportionately, as they become the lower ranks in the military, and get killed at a higher rate.

I’m a blue collar union meat head with socialist tendencies; I believe in public health care, gun control and affordable post secondary education. Apparently I’m a bitch working for the man but I live a pretty good life

The funny thing about socialism is that it can work in a limited form if your demographic consists of high agency individuals with a high level of social trust. There is probably a population cap to socialist policies too before the bureaucracy becomes too unmanageable. This is why it almost always invariably fails in most societies.

(08-09-2019 10:33 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote: The funny thing about socialism is that it can work in a limited form if your demographic consists of high agency individuals with a high level of social trust. There is probably a population cap to socialist policies too before the bureaucracy becomes too unmanageable. This is why it almost always invariably fails in most societies.

I forgot the exact number, but sociologists had in pegged around 160-something as the largest a group can get before it splinters.

Unfortunately the economic terms used in the West make threads like this meaningless. It’s not helped by the fact that parties in the financial democracies have abandoned the working classes for the so called centre ground where the money, media leverage and celebrities are.

Stripped of all the political baggage and misinterpretations, socialism is simply “one for all and all for one.”

Banding together really is the only defence productive labour has against the awful power of the exponential function. Unlike labour, usury doesn’t tire, sleep, take holidays, suffer workplace injuries, pays for wives and children and retire. Usury has more legal protection than productive labour in the west.

We all know that the OP is talking about the SJW phenomenon but historically a socialist is not weaker than the usurer who lives on sucking others’ productivity out of the economy.

Don't spend all your energy on sex and all your money on women; they have destroyed kings. (Proverbs 31:3 GNB)

ie. poor men vote socialist if they are HIGH T (because it makes sense for them)
rich men for for low taxes/low benefits if they are HIGH T (because it makes sense for them)

But, these kinds of studies are all very complex...and sometimes contradictory.

"In a study published Monday in the journal PNAS, researchers found that getting an extra shot of testosterone made men engage in seemingly contradictory behaviors. When an unseen negotiator lowballed male subjects plied with extra testosterone, their responses were unusually punishing, even when it cost subjects to inflict such punishment. But under the influence of extra testosterone, the same men responded to a negotiating partner’s more respectful bid with outsized generosity."

A man should never be ashamed to own that he is wrong, which is but saying in other words that he is wiser today than he was yesterday.
-Alexander Pope

08-10-2019 02:31 AM

The following 2 users Like Blake2's post:2 users Like Blake2's postroberto, BBinger

I’m the last person to say anything positive about socialism or communism, but this must be something exclusively to the west.

Has this taken into account figures such as Fidel, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim il-Sung.. amongst others.

Not that i’m praising or saying anything positive about these cunts, but they were very far from being weak.

I think these far leftists have no idea what socialism is and of course they wouldn’t, they have never lived in a communist country. They should have an experiment where they send a group of these idiots to Cuba or North Korea for a year and have them live like the locals. I guarantee a lot of them would come back with a different mindset

(11-15-2014 09:06 AM)Little Dark Wrote: This thread is not going in the direction I was hoping for.

Considering that the nationalist right, especially the younger members, are moving in a Third Position/Nazbol direction and calling out the International Money Power that is largely behind Globo-Homo, "capitalism vs socialism" is not the dichotomy you want to be setting up. It is clear as Tucker Carlson said recently on his show, the Right needs to be socially conservative but more left on economics and be pro-worker, in other words Third Position.

Plus it's a distraction and false dichotomy. The main issue today is whites vs. the anti-whites, not about this Boomer obsession with "communism" or "socialism." The elites want you to think that your enemy is the average white college student who wants free education and healthcare, or the white factory worker who plans on voting Democrat because Trump's economic policies have not helped him, rather than the rootless transnational corporations who promote mass immigration because it benefits their profits and fly the gay flag to promote leftist cultural narratives to the population.

They were not commies and many European labor movements just fought for livable wages and good working conditions. And as it turned out and Henry Ford predicted it - men who get paid more also consume more, thus the rich can even become richer over time.

As for the rest - yes - marxists are on average weak not only physically but mentally and even in terms of their sexual market value.

(08-09-2019 10:33 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote: The funny thing about socialism is that it can work in a limited form if your demographic consists of high agency individuals with a high level of social trust. There is probably a population cap to socialist policies too before the bureaucracy becomes too unmanageable. This is why it almost always invariably fails in most societies.

I forgot the exact number, but sociologists had in pegged around 160-something as the largest a group can get before it splinters.

Yeah, I did "The history of political thought" as an unofficial major at the University of Minnesota (and younger profs in the program moved on to Northwestern and ASU - of course Princeton, Oxford and London would be the top of the 'food chain' in that specialty). And 160 + zeal is the max figure I recall, too. Bu socialist Kibbutzim in Israel (plus Ancient Sparta) seem to have generated a larger max number of 1500.

Zeal (usually religious)can overcome (in group/out group) trust conflicts to some degree. But zealotry and fear (cf, Soviet Union, Robert Owen's New Harmony colony) fades or dies eventually. But 1500 is neither the median nor frequently seen, and 160 might be the best estimate.

“There is no global anthem, no global currency, no certificate of global citizenship. We pledge allegiance to one flag, and that flag is the American flag!” -DJT

Actually the only working fully socialist - everyone owns the same - systems are happening in Christian and Buddhis monasteries, but that means that every monk is a spiritual being. Extrapolate it to all humanity, women and you will see that it cannot work.

Even groups of 150 won't work. Many people don't know it, but the US founding fathers attempted 2 years of full socialism - of shared harvests. It resulted in the 2 years of famine almost instantly. They likely would not have survived one year longer, so they re-created a normal market system, divided the plots and let every family work for themselves. They turned it around almost instantly and the third year was a full succcess, they easily produced enough to feed the colony and have extra while they starved in the 2 years of socialist system. In the new capitalist system they could even afford to help out underperforming people who did not produce enough food on their own or were sick - so there was suddenly enough for charity when before it was crap.

So unless you have most humans behaving like highly ethical monks you can forget it.

Another option where a semi-socialist system might come around is when we reach technology so high, that the overwhelming majority of people don't need to work in order to have a decent life, currency is also abolished. So people work then based on interest while machines do all tedious work. But this technology is thousands of years away and it would have to have a positive uplifting social model so that the people don't piss away their lives in useless endeavors. So no - socialism cannot work. What can work is a highly efficient system offering basic free education and medical care, when the output productivity of the people is efficient enough - but countries like Germany, Switzerland or Finland work due to being uniform, high-IQ, low-corruption, having a good work-ethic and looking down on people who don't work etc. In addition those countries will all fall because the people will be replaced by highly different people who won't be able to uphold the same kind of productivity, low corruption and low crime attitude. But it's not a socialist system per se - just having more charity aspects that likely would have been created in the US as well if it were a country that was 99% European right from the beginning.

Socialist-like policies work well if you have a high average IQ, high social trust, no or little immigration society. Elements of socialism have worked in Japan right now and most of Western Europe + Anglo countries before the mass immigration hit.

(08-11-2019 02:03 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote: Actually the only working fully socialist - everyone owns the same - systems are happening in Christian and Buddhis monasteries, but that means that every monk is a spiritual being. Extrapolate it to all humanity, women and you will see that it cannot work.

And the Hutterites. The way the Hutterites believe and have their "colonies" set up should in theory be a wet dream for these modern socialists except threre's that God part getting in the way. And it works for them. No one owns anything. No one's in debt. They're Hard working and strong farm men. The Women are women and know their place. They raise strong kids and live in peace together without a lot of worries. Everything they do is for the benefit of the colony and everyone in it. It is an appealing life. But yeah even the Hutterites know that their colonies can't get to big. Once they start reaching 150 they start subdividing and moving on. It's actually pretty interesting. It's tribalism. Native American tribes were the same before we gave them alcohol, meth and cheeseburgers.

From the official Hutterites website.
'All members of the colony are provided for equally and no assets are to be kept for personal gain. Hutterites do not have personal bank accounts; rather all earnings are held communally and funding and necessities are distributed according to one’s needs. Hutterites believe that all their work is to benefit the community and is a form of service to God."

(08-11-2019 02:03 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote: Actually the only working fully socialist - everyone owns the same - systems are happening in Christian and Buddhis monasteries, but that means that every monk is a spiritual being. Extrapolate it to all humanity, women and you will see that it cannot work.

And the Hutterites. The way the Hutterites believe and have their "colonies" set up should in theory be a wet dream for these modern socialists except threre's that God part getting in the way. And it works for them. No one owns anything. No one's in debt. They're Hard working and strong farm men. The Women are women and know their place. They raise strong kids and live in peace together without a lot of worries. Everything they do is for the benefit of the colony and everyone in it. It is an appealing life. But yeah even the Hutterites know that their colonies can't get to big. Once they start reaching 150 they start subdividing and moving on. It's actually pretty interesting. It's tribalism. Native American tribes were the same before we gave them alcohol, meth and cheeseburgers.

From the official Hutterites website.
'All members of the colony are provided for equally and no assets are to be kept for personal gain. Hutterites do not have personal bank accounts; rather all earnings are held communally and funding and necessities are distributed according to one’s needs. Hutterites believe that all their work is to benefit the community and is a form of service to God."

Interesting - sort of like the Amish, just with German heritage and more communal property rights. Not so sure about the 150 head-count model. When large monasteries can do it with far greater amount of people, then it should be possible.

However that is more a religious order since their life is very very close to devotion. In reality Christian monasteries could also copy that model if the church allowed monks to have wives. I saw some Buddhist monasteries which allow wives and kids to live on the grounds with the local monks. They get an appartment and living expenses which is sufficient.

Plus this statement:

Hutterites believe that all their work is to benefit the community and is a form of service to God."

No society on Earth is able to live by that rule - currently human consciousness is not ready for that.

(08-11-2019 03:40 PM)Spectrumwalker Wrote: Once they start reaching 150 they start subdividing and moving on. It's actually pretty interesting. It's tribalism. Native American tribes were the same before we gave them alcohol, meth and cheeseburgers.

From the official Hutterites website.
'All members of the colony are provided for equally and no assets are to be kept for personal gain. Hutterites do not have personal bank accounts; rather all earnings are held communally and funding and necessities are distributed according to one’s needs. Hutterites believe that all their work is to benefit the community and is a form of service to God."

Quote:Tucked away near the picturesque village of Robertsbridge, the Bruderhof community has given up material possessions and, shock horror, the internet, among other things, for a shared life following Jesus.

Quote:And while viewed by many as “weird”, with accusations of cult-like behaviour levelled at the community, the idyllic Darvell site away from mainstream society looks strangely alluring.

Children skip off to school happily with lots of friends and are encouraged to play in the fields and swim in the lake, while the adults go about their work. No one earns a salary or owns anything – if you need something, it will be provided.

The elderly and sick are cared for and integrated into the workplace if desired, meals are often eaten communally – and there’s a lot of singing.

“People have asked us if the Bruderhof is a cult,” says one member. “I would emphatically say ‘no’. A cult forces its members to stay.”

“The greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents.”

Wasn't meant to be. I posted an article that I thought was worth reading. I'd like to talk about it, not me.

(08-09-2019 09:04 PM)scotian Wrote: I’m a blue collar union meat head with socialist tendencies; I believe in public health care, gun control and affordable post secondary education. Apparently I’m a bitch working for the man but I live a pretty good life

How old are you OP, 18?

Couple months out of 40. What trade? I do automotive.

....

Moving on to later replies. I think there's two kinds of socialism. Real socialism is where everyone gives their all to the community, and everyone benefits equally. It's a pooling of resources. Government socialism, on the other hand, is where the powerful get taxed hard, receive nothing more for it, and millions of useless eaters are on the dole. I think this is what the article points at; if you are strong, you want to be able to gamble your wits against fate, and come out on top. If you are weak, you want to be cared for so you don't have to do it yourself.

Main beef I have with labor unions is they protect the bad workers. I do like the skilled trade unions, like the IBEW. The UAW, otoh, can suck a root.

(08-09-2019 09:04 PM)scotian Wrote: I’m a blue collar union meat head with socialist tendencies; I believe in public health care, gun control and affordable post secondary education. Apparently I’m a bitch working for the man but I live a pretty good life

How old are you OP, 18?

I would be qualified to be more on the right, but I am for all of that. Though gun control is a difficult issue - I would just make a law that lets you give up your guns for safekeeping so long as you are on meds that have "murderous rage" as a side effect or you are qualified officially as bipolar or schizophrenic. The corporate lackeys of course don't want to go there since their precious pharmaceuticals are sacred and their lobbyists give such delicious bribes.

But apart from that - basic decent single payer healthcare and solid education is a no-brainer and education only costs a leg and an arm when it's for profit - something you see vindicated in the US. Super-elite colleges and schools may cost a buck, but if you get accepted to Harvard or Cambridge, then it's usually not an issue to get financing - because it's a good investment that you can easily pay back.

The socialism label gets thrown around too much - the real socialists can be found here:

I am an economist and went myself through times where I was a full-on libertarian on to classical liberal, now I have a more varied understanding as I got older. Young people are easily indoctrinated. It takes a while to study all the sides of an issue, accumulate life experience. In my book - unless you are not one of those blokes above, then you are no socialist. Single payer healthcare and some luxury healthcare for the top 5% is a system that works well in countries like Switzerland and is a no-brainer - it's not socialism, but common sense based on what we experienced in the developed countries in the last 70 years.